On 7/6/05, Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PB> Any reason why this was not applied? It appears kind of cool.
> FYI, the one in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is
> newer than what you quoted.
> One thing _I_ am unhappy about what it does is that it does not
> try to be intelligent about merges (I haven't tried the script
> on a merged head myself).

I am not completely sure this is really a problem. I would presume
that the project lead doesn't really need to use
git-format-patch-script and the individual developer should probably
rebase on the latest head which is either done by trivially reapplying
the patches in sequence automatically or reapplying the patches in
sequence with some edits to fix any conflicts that have arisen.

So, it is not clear to me git-format-patch-script needs to worry about
merge questions. It'd be better to put such logic in a separate
rebasing script, I think. If anything, you might want to add checks to
git-format-patch script that refuse to generate a patch sequence for
any sequence of patches that spans a merge commit.

homepage: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/
blog: http://orwelliantremors.blogspot.com/
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to